Miami Dolphins players Richie Incognito and Jonathan Martin are seen in this Sept. 30 file photo. Martin left the team after alleged bullying by Incognito, who later admitted to sending a text message using the N-word. (Bill Feig, AP file)

Is there a double standard on the N-word? Is it socially acceptable for blacks to use the term while it’s unacceptable for whites? Though a recent court case in New York suggests the idea has no legal standing, it’s the court of public opinion (and the football gridiron) where the issue finds itself playing out again in recent weeks.

That the word is loaded and potentially divisive isn’t in doubt. Social critic Ta-Nehisi Coates argued recently in The New York Times, “If you could choose one word to represent the centuries of bondage, the decades of terrorism, the long days of mass rape, the totality of white violence that birthed the black race in America, it would be ‘nigger.’ ”

And so it is that many arbiters of language and social sensitivity have been trying for decades to erase the N-word from common usage. A brief (and wholly incomplete) list of examples from the past couple years:

* Texas Gov. Rick Perry came under fire during the 2012 presidential campaign for a rock bearing the name “Niggerhead” that had previously appeared at the entrance of a hunting camp on his family’s ranch. The family painted over the name, but Perry was criticized for not doing so sooner.

* In Utah last year, a group tried (unsuccessfully, so far) to change the name of Negro Bill Canyon, which until the ’60s was called Nigger Bill Canyon. The progression of the name shows the change in attitudes over time.

NFL umpire Roy Ellison was suspended for one game earlier this season for his comments to Washington Redskins player Trent Williams, who reportedly upset Ellison by repeatedly using the N-word on the field. (Rick Osentoski, AP file)

But let’s get back to the question of the double standard. Influential African-American columnist Leonard Pitts makes the case in a column in Sunday’s Miami Herald that there are plenty of people — white and black — who would keep the word alive:

In just the last few weeks we’ve had the following: Richie Incognito, a white player for the Miami Dolphins, tags a black teammate, Jonathan Martin, with that epithet and black players defend the white guy because he’s an “honorary” brother; Matt Barnes of the Los Angeles Clippers tweets the word in criticizing his teammates and says people who have a problem with that should “get used to it;” Trent Williams, a black player for Washington, DC’s professional football team (speaking of racial slurs) is accused of using the word against Roy Ellison, a black referee, a charge Williams denies.

Lamenting the reaction to those events, Pitts writes:

The mushrooming controversies prompt two African-American NBA analysts, Charles Barkley and Michael Wilbon, to defend their usage of the N-word. And it’s not just the jockocracy, either. Last week in The New York Times, celebrated social critic Ta-Nehisi Coates, who is African American, made the old “context” argument; i.e., it’s OK if we say it, but it’s not OK if you say it. In defending the N-word as an “in-word” Coates noted how some women will jokingly call other women by a misogynistic term or some gay people will laughingly use a homophobic slur in talking with or about one another.

Yielding the floor to Coates, here’s the relevant passage from his New York Times op-ed, which the quote above also came from:

A separate and unequal standard for black people is always wrong. And the desire to ban the word “nigger” is not anti-racism, it is finishing school. When Matt Barnes used the word “niggas” he was being inappropriate. When Richie Incognito and Riley Cooper used “nigger,” they were being violent and offensive. That we have trouble distinguishing the two evidences our discomfort with the great chasm between black and white America.

The irony … is how the N-word was used freely by whites to torment generations of African-Americans, but today that same word or a variation of it has become a term of endearment by many of the descendants of the very people who once had no choice but to endure hearing it.

What do you think? Is there a double standard on the N-word? And should the word be buried?

Send us a letter to the editor at openforum@denverpost.com (150 words or fewer, and please include your full name, city and a phone number where we can reach you). We’ll consider your comments for publication in an upcoming edition of The Denver Post.

In a Nov. 30, 2012 file photo, parts of the brick walkway of Liberty Island that were damaged in Superstorm Sandy are shown during a tour of New Yorks Liberty Island. After hundreds of National Park Service workers from as far away as California and Alaska spent weeks cleaning and making repairs, the island will reopen to the public on Independence Day, July 4, 2013. (AP Photo/Richard Drew, File)

The Statue of Liberty is reopening after the severe flooding caused by Hurricane Sandy months earlier, a storm that broke railings, damaged paving stones and destroyed mechanical systems on Liberty Island.

The damage to Liberty Island and neighboring Ellis Island cost an estimated $59 million, and there are some repairs still underway. Still, visitors will be able to see the island on July 4.

The statue, a gift from France, was dedicated in 1886 and symbolizes the friendship between the two countries and their shared love of liberty.

We’re glad she’s back in action.

Comments Off on Day’s Best: Statue of Liberty reopening for the Fourth

Turkmenistan is regarded as having one of the worst human rights records in the world, and the country suppresses political opposition and heavily controls media outlets. It also discriminates against non-Turkmen ethnic minorities such as Russians and Uzbeks.

When is a “fundamental right” not a right at all? When the secretary general of the United Nations gets done slicing and dicing it.

“Freedoms of expression should be and must be guaranteed and protected,” Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said, according to Reuters, in what sounded like a good start in addressing the “Innocence of Muslims” furor. But he quickly revealed he didn’t mean it. It turns out that free speech should be protected only when it is “used for common justice, common purpose” — and of course you know who gets to define those terms.

“When some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others’ values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected in such a way,” Ban continued.

“My position is that freedom of expression, while it is a fundamental right and privilege, should not be abused by such people, by such a disgraceful and shameful act.”

Thanks, Ban. No one really expects any principled courage from a UN bureaucrat, but Ban’s mealy mouthed repudiation of free speech offers yet more evidence for why his organization is so nearly useless when it comes to actually protecting the fundamental rights of people around the world.

It is also yet another reminder to those in the United States, beginning at the top reaches of the administration, who seem reluctant to offer an unqualified defense of free expression, even when it is admittedly offensive. When they blame violence on free speech, they play into the hands of those who don’t believe in free speech in the first place.

[/media-credit] Pitcher and serving dish from A Day in Pompeii, which will be on display at the Denver Museum of Nature & Science through Jan. 13. (credit: William Starling)

Beginning today, the Denver Museum of Nature & Science will be host to a a traveling exhibit of artifacts from Pompeii, one of the most interesting and famous archaeological sites in the world.

The traveling exhibit will feature 250 pieces that illustrate how ancient Romans lived before Mount Vesuvius buried the city of Pompeii with volcanic ash. One of the wonders of the archaeological site has been the degree to which artifacts remained intact.

“The artifacts really represent daily life,” said museum educator Samantha Richards, according to a Post story. “They are things you would have in your home. Things you would eat, places you would go, artifacts representing their religion and their burials — it’s a time capsule of what we think was going on right before the eruption.”

Vincent Carroll is The Denver Post's editorial page editor. He has been writing commentary on politics and public policy in Colorado since 1982 and was originally with the Rocky Mountain News, where he was also editor of the editorial pages until that newspaper gave up the ghost in 2009.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.

To reach the Denver Post editorial page by phone: 303-954-1331

Posts by Category

Posts by Category

Idea Log Archives

Idea Log Archives

About The Idea Log

The idea log The Denver Post editorial board shares commentary and opinion on issues of interest to Coloradans.